Tariq Ramadan has a long history of practicing Stealth Jihad, as Robert Spencer and many others have demonstrated. In 2004, when Notre Dame University gave Ramadan a professorship, the Bush Administration revoked his visa based on the law that denies visas to those who use a “position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity.”

‘Pluralism,’ generally speaking, is the rejection of the idea that something can be (1) held as absolutely true and (2) legitimately adhered to, or valued. An example of something that is accepted as “absolutely true” in America’s Constitution is that human rights are ‘unalienable.’ The less a Constitution includes absolutes in regard to human dignity, property rights, due process, etc., the more the door is opened for communities, regions, or a whole country to adopt systems opposed to these values through pure democratic voting. One example of this would be Sharia Law.

There is something to be said for living in a pluralistic society in the right context. If we are referring to a pluralistic society as one in which people may legally hold, even in public, different views about things, without fear of reprisal, then this is something we can all support. However, if a country has a constitution without any absolutes (e.g., constitutional protections for property ownership, the right to life, the right to bear arms), and this is coupled with heavy emphasis on democracy, it can pave the way for that country to democratically vote for nationwide Sharia Law.

How simple it is, then, for stealth jihadists like Tariq Ramadan to “defend” pluralism and democracy, while sounding perfectly reasonable in their discourse, but at the same time be paving the way for the “Islamic State.”

Al-Banna’s objective was to found an ‘Islamic state,’ based on gradual reform, beginning with popular education and broad-based social programs.